Jewish audio on chabad.org. This שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף ט, but we will start from the last few words of דף ח עמוד ב. Now before we continue in the גמרא, we will finish the פשט of תוספות in the סוגיא before. Here we were discussing the מחלוקת between רב מאיר and the חכמים in the משנה concerning the דין of מוציא שם רע. It had in the משנה that מוציא שם רע בשלשה דברי רב מאיר, that when it comes to judge the case of a מוציא שם רע, רב מאיר holds it's enough if you have a בית דין of three, but the חכמים hold that has to be twenty-three. And first the גמרא explained that a מחלוקת between רב מאיר and the חכמים is that according to רב מאיר we say we are not afraid of a לעז, and the חכמים hold we are afraid of a לעז. And then there was another פשט of רבא, that the מחלוקת was whether we care about the כבוד of the original דיינים or not. And there is a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות's פשט in that גמרא. Because concerning מוציא שם רע, we have two parts.

There is the first part, when the husband claimed that his wife was מזנה between the קידושין and the נישואין, and therefore, there are two things that have to happen. One thing is that she loses the כתובה, because she was מזנה then. And another thing, if he has witnesses that she was מזנה then, so not only does she lose the כתובה, but she is also killed. That is the first process, the husband's claim. If the father of the wife comes and brings witnesses that are מזים the witnesses of the husband, so then, not only is she not killed and doesn't lose the כתובה, but the husband is fined, and he has to pay מאה כסף. So רש״י learned that the פשט in the מחלוקת between רב מאיר and the חכמים is that we're dealing with the first step of the מוציא שם רע, the step when the husband comes to בית דין, and he claims that she was מזנה. And מחלוקת is, as the גמרא says, whether חיישינן ללעז or not, means that he comes to בית דין and says he doesn't have any witnesses that she was מזנה, but nevertheless he claims that when he lived with her after the חתונה, he saw she wasn't a בתולה, and therefore, he suspects that she was מזנה between the אירוסין and נישואין. And the

דין is that concerning the כתובה, we believe the husband even if he has no witnesses. So therefore, he comes and says, "I don't have witnesses, I can't have her killed, but I still want her to lose the כתובה." And that is the מחלוקת between רב מאיר and the חכמים whether concerning this דין that he wants her to lose the כתובה, do we need twenty-three or three is enough. Because it is possible that when the rumor will go out and people will hear that he called her to דין תורה, so maybe there are witnesses around and they will come to בית דין to testify, so this could get turned into דיני נפשות. So רב מאיר holds that we don't suspect that לעז will go out and witnesses will come, so therefore, it is enough to have three, because it's only דיני ממונות. חכמים say we do suspect maybe witnesses will come and it'll turn, be turned into דיני נפשות, and therefore right away when you start you have to have twenty-three. The second פשט, רבא's פשט is that the שאלה is whether we care about the כבוד של ראשונים. And it's also the case where the husband is the one that's claiming, but the case is that the husband said that he has witnesses, and therefore they got twenty-three people together, because if there are witnesses then it's דיני נפשות. But they found out that he has no witnesses, so they left. But now the husband is saying, "Even though I cannot have her killed, but at least I want her to lose the כתובה." So the question is, is for that טענה now, for the דיני ממונות that he's טוען now, is for that enough three or not? So רב מאיר says, why not? Since now it's only דיני ממונות, it's enough three. But the חכמים say, since we care about the כבוד of the original דיינים, people will think that the reason we have three now, not twenty-three, is because those twenty were not good דיינים, so there'll be a bad name on those דיינים. And therefore, we have to have all twenty-three. And then the גמרא asked a קשיא, that we see in a ברייתא where it says the חכמים say that if he claims money, then it's enough three, if he's claiming נפשות, you have to have twenty-three. Now what does that mean? Didn't we just say that according to the חכמים, even if you claim money, you have to have twenty-three? So ממילא according to the second פשט, we could say that when do you have to have twenty-three? If he thought it was נפשות, he claimed he had witnesses, and we got twenty-three together, so then even if it ends up to be דיני ממונות, you still have to have twenty-three. But if it started לכתחילה בדיני ממונות, he comes to בית דין and he says that, "I don't have witnesses, all I'm claiming is that she should lose the כתובה," then even the חכמים hold that it's enough three. But according to the other פשט, according to עולא's פשט, that even if he starts off with דיני ממונות, he claims, "I have no witnesses, I'm only claiming that she should lose the כתובה," you still have to have twenty-three three, because we're afraid witnesses might come, so what's the פשט in the ברייתא where it says the חכמים say that if he claims money, it's enough three? And the גמרא answered that the פשט is that the case is where the husband brought witnesses, and the father brought witnesses and were מזים the husband's witnesses. And now the father is the one that's claiming the מאה כסף from the husband. So that's what the חכמים say: when he claims the מאה כסף from the husband, so then it's enough three because it's only דיני ממונות. And now we can't be afraid maybe more witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband because we won't accept them anyway. After his first group were מוזם, we won't accept them even if they come. But if it's דיני נפשות, meaning if the case was not when the father is claiming from the husband the מאה כסף, but the case would be that the husband is claiming from the father, from the other side, so then the דין would be, even if it's דיני ממונות, you still have to have 23. That's the פשט. That's the way רש״י learned the פשט. But תוספות learned that the whole גמרא is speaking not about the husband claiming the דיני ממונות, that he wants her to lose the כתובה, but it is the father that is claiming the מאה כסף. And when the גמרא says that the מחלוקת is according to עולא whether חיישינן ללעז or not, that means as follows: that the case was that the husband brought witnesses that she was מזנה. Then the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband. They weren't מזים, they were מכחיש. If they would have been מזים, then the דין is that we wouldn't be afraid that maybe more witnesses will come because we won't accept them anyway. But if they were only מכחיש the first witnesses, so then, if more witnesses would come, we would accept them. And this is the case here: that the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, and now the father is claiming the מאה כסף, which is only דיני ממונות. So ר׳ מאיר says, since it's only דיני ממונות, three is enough. But the חכמים say, since maybe other witnesses might come to testify for the husband, since the first witnesses that the husband brought were not מוזם, just מוכחש, so they might come, so then it'll be turned into דיני נפשות, and then we will definitely have to have 23. So we are afraid that people will say that the original three that we had were no good, and that's why we changed to 23. People won't know that the reason we changed into 23 is because it changed from דיני ממונות to דיני נפשות. And therefore, לכתחילה, when you judge the דיני ממונות, you have to have 23. That's the opinion of the חכמים. The second פשט, that is רבה's פשט, is, according to תוספות, that the father got 23 people together saying that he has witnesses to be מזים the witnesses of the husband. And if these witnesses would be accepted, then the witnesses of the husband would get killed, because the דין by הזמה is that whatever they wanted to do to the person they testified about is done to them. So since the witnesses of the husband testified that she was מזנה, and they wanted to have her killed, so now if you are מזים them, they are killed. In order to accept the second group of witnesses, you must have 23, definitely, because definitely you are judging דיני נפשות. But the case is that till they managed to listen to them, something came up and they had to leave, and only three were left. Now, these three cannot accept the witnesses of the father, because since it's דיני נפשות, you have to have 23. So the father says to the three, that טאקע you cannot accept the witnesses for דיני נפשות, but accept them at least for דיני ממונות, and at least that let that help that he should have to pay me the מאה כסף. So ר׳ מאיר says, why not? Since דיני ממונות only needs three, and we have three here, so let the three accept the witnesses of the father, at least concerning the דין of דיני ממונות. But חכמים say that since it started off with 23, so we care about the כבוד of the original 20, that people might think the original 20 were no good, therefore we have to stay with these 23 and we cannot accept it and do it with only three. Then the גמרא asked a קשיא: the חכמים say, we learn in a ברייתא, that if he claimed money, then three is enough, if he claimed נפשות, then you have 23. So the question of the גמרא is according to תוספות: מילא according to the second פשט, according to רבה, we understand the פשט in the ברייתא. When the ברייתא said, תבעו ממון בשלשה, if he claimed money, it was with three, we're talking in a case where they never got together for דיני נפשות, that it was after the father already proved that the עדות of the husband were wrong, and now he only got a בית דין together of three to judge דיני ממונות, to judge that he wants the מאה כסף from the husband. In a case like that, the חכמים also agree that three is enough, because because according to the second פשט, the only time the חכמים say you have to have 23 is if they got 23 together to judge דיני נפשות, but then they left, and they were only left with three, and now the father is saying, at least judge me the דיני ממונות. The דיני נפשות of killing the first group of עדים we can't because there are no 23 here, but at least accept the witnesses in order for him to pay me the מאה כסף. So that's the חכמים say, we're afraid for the כבוד of the original 20, and therefore we have to have 23. But if לכתחילה the father came and said that, "I want him to pay me the מאה כסף," and he לכתחילה got only three דיינים together, even the חכמים agree that three is enough. So that's the פשט in the ברייתא. The חכמים say, if he's claiming money only, if the father is לכתחילה claiming money without getting 23 together, לכתחילה only got three for money, then even the חכמים agree you have to have three. If תבע נפשות, if he started off with נפשות, he started off by wanting to have the original עדים killed, and that's why he got 23 together, and then they left, so then you still have to have 23, even if he wants only the מאה כסף, because they חושש for the כבוד של ראשונים. So according to רבא, we understand the פשט in the ברייתא. But according to עולא, who says the פשט in the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is חיישינן לעז, and therefore whenever the father comes and claims the מאה כסף, you always must have 23, because we're always afraid maybe more witnesses will come, and it'll turn into דיני נפשות, and then you will definitely have to have 23, so there will be a לעז on the original דיינים. So it comes out that whenever the father claims the מאה כסף, even if he starts off with three, you still must have 23. So what's the פשט in the ברייתא, where the חכמים say, תבע ממון בשלשה? And the גמרא answers, פשט in the ברייתא is that not that the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, so then טאקע we're always afraid maybe more witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband, and it could turn into דיני נפשות, and therefore we will have to have 23, and there will be a לעז on the original דיינים. But the פשט is this is speaking in a case where the father brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the husband. Now, when they're מזים the witnesses of the husband, then there is never a possibility to have more witnesses for the benefit of the husband, because we won't accept them. Since his first witnesses were מוזם, so we won't accept any more witnesses. In a case like that, that cannot be turned into דיני נפשות, that maybe eventually it'll turn into a דין where we might judge her whether to kill her or not, because never will we accept any more witnesses against her. So since it cannot be turned into דיני נפשות, so all it is is דיני ממונות. So the father is claiming that the husband should pay him the מאה כסף. Therefore, three is enough. And this is the פשט in the ברייתא. The חכמים say, תבע ממון, if he only claimed money, which means that they were מזים the witnesses of the husband. So then all the father is claiming is money, so then there's שלשה, because there is no חשש of לעז. There's no חשש it might turn into דיני נפשות, and we might have to have 23 later. And ממילא there will be a לעז on the original three. So therefore, we could start with three, and we're not afraid of anything, because it's only דיני ממונות. But when it says תבע נפשות, that means a case where the עדים of the husband were not מזים the עדים of the father, but they were מכחיש the עדים of the father. And in a case like that, we are afraid maybe more witnesses will come later and we would accept them, witnesses for the benefit of the husband, so then it could turn into דיני נפשות against the wife, against the daughter, because if other witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband, we will judge the daughter whether she's killed or not. So since it could be turned into דיני נפשות, because the witnesses of the husband were just מוכחש, not מוזם, so then, since it could be turned into דיני נפשות, if that will happen, there will be a לעז on the original דיינים. We will think that the reason we changed from three to 23 is because they weren't good. So therefore, the חכמים say לכתחילה you have to start with 23. One might ask that לכאורה, if the case here is that they were מזים the witnesses of the husband, and that's why it could never turn into דיני נפשות against the wife, but לכאורה it's דיני נפשות because of a different reason. We know that if you are מזים the original witnesses, the דין is ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, you have to do to the witnesses what they wanted to do to the person they testified about. So if the father brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the husband, so then the witnesses of the husband have to get killed, because when they testified against her, they wanted her killed. Now that they were מזים them, so they have to get killed. So it comes out that if the father brought witnesses to be מזים the witnesses of the husband, this is a reason to kill the witnesses of the husband, So it comes out that this is דיני נפשות because of this! So how could the גמרא say that when it says in the ברייתא the חכמים say תובע ממון בשלשה, that means that they were מזים the witnesses of the husband and that's why it's only three, because it's not דיני נפשות and it never could get דיני נפשות? But this itself is דיני נפשות. The fact that they are being מזים the witnesses of the husband, that itself is דיני נפשות because that causes the original witnesses to be killed. So תוספות says that we're speaking in the case that the father brought witnesses to be מזים the witnesses of the husband before גמר דין, before the בית דין had פסק'נד the דין yet based on the testimony of the witnesses of the husband. The דין is that when is the דין of ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, that we do to the witnesses what they wanted to do to the person they testified on, it's only is if based on their testimony בית דין already had given out the verdict. So then the דין is that if after בית דין gave out a verdict because of their testimony, they become מוזמין, then you do to them what they wanted to have done to that other person. But if בית דין didn't give out a verdict yet on the basis of the testimony of the first witnesses, so then if you are מזים them, we do not do to them what they wanted to do to the other person. And that's the case here. The father brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the husband before בית דין פסק'נד yet that she is to get killed based on the testimony of the witnesses of the husband. So therefore, even if you are מזים them, they do not get killed. So it comes out that there is no דיני נפשות here. מצד the הזמה, מצד the fact that the witnesses are מזים the first witnesses, there is no דיני נפשות, because the first witnesses would not get killed anyway, because there was no פסק דין by the בית דין given out yet based on their testimony. On the other hand, to say that it will turn into דיני נפשות because more witnesses might come for the benefit of the husband and this might lead her to get killed again, that is not true either, because we'll never accept any other witnesses, because we see the first witnesses were מוזמין. So therefore, in a case like that, the חכמים say three is enough. But if the second witnesses, the witnesses of the father, were only מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, so then we are still afraid, maybe more witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband and it'll turn into דיני נפשות, that's why the חכמים say that לכתחילה you must have 23. And תוספות goes through with this פשט throughout the whole גמרא later on, too. תוספות learns that פשט also concerning אביי's statement. When אביי said that כולי עלמא חיישינן ללעז, ומשום כבודם של ראשונים, והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאתרו בה סתם, and the מחלוקת is the same מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the חכמים, whether when you warn, must you also say exactly which מיתה the person will get or not, this is also, according to תוספות, נוגע to the claim of the father against the husband. And what the גמרא means to say is as follows. אביי is saying that באמת everyone agrees that חיישינן ללעז. We're talking here in a case that the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, not מזים. And therefore, there's still a possibility that he will bring more witnesses, and it will turn into דיני נפשות. And if it'll turn into דיני נפשות, you will then have to have 23. So everyone agrees חיישינן ללעז, even רבי מאיר holds, that we are afraid that if you're going to have to have 23 later, there will be a לעז, a bad name, to the original three דיינים. So therefore, בעצם you would לכתחילה have to have 23 לכתחילה, because it might turn into דיני נפשות, and then there will be a לעז for the first דיינים. Also we say that we are afraid for the כבוד of the ראשונים. That if he tried to bring עדים to be מזים the עדים of the husband, and then they left, and they were left with three, and he says at least judge me דיני ממונות, also everyone agrees we would have to have 23 for the כבוד of the ראשונים. So what is the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים? When the witnesses that the husband brought said לכתחילה that we only warned her that she will get מיתה, but we didn't warn her which מיתה she will get, and then the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש these witnesses, so here's a case where we are not afraid anymore maybe more witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband, because he already brought all his witnesses. So since we are not afraid it'll turn into דיני נפשות, so when the father comes to claim the מאה כסף, there is no reason to be חושש for a לעז. The only reason we said we're חושש for a לעז is because maybe other witnesses will come for the benefit of the husband, and we'll have to get twenty-three then, and then there'll be a לעז for the original three. But if he already brought his witnesses, and they said that they only warned her that she will get מיתה, not which מיתה, so if you

hold that that is enough that she should not get killed, so we know that we will not get any more witnesses that will say that she should get killed. So therefore, even though the witnesses of the father only were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, nevertheless, there is no reason to suspect that more witnesses will come and cause it to become דיני נפשות, because the witnesses are here and they said that they warned her only that she should get, will get killed, but not which מיתה. And therefore ר' מאיר says that there is no reason to have twenty-three, because there is no reason to be חושש for לעז. But the חכמים hold that if you warn the person that he will get מיתה without saying which מיתה, that is enough to have the person killed. So therefore, in the case where the father brought witnesses who were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, when the witnesses of the husband said that they warned her saying that she will get killed, it is דיני נפשות. And אגם at this point it's not דיני נפשות because they are being מוכחש, but maybe more witnesses will come, and they will say the same thing. And if the other witnesses will say the same thing, she would be חייב מיתה, because according to the חכמים, even if you don't say which מיתה you're חייב, it's still called התראה and you're חייב. So therefore, when the husband claims his מאה כסף based on the fact that he has witnesses who were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, it still could turn into דיני נפשות, because if the husband will bring other witnesses that will testify the same as the first, and they are not מוכחש, and because we are חושש for לעז, so we're afraid it might turn to דיני נפשות, and then we'll have to have twenty-three, and it'll be a לעז for these three. Therefore, the חכמים say that we must start off with twenty-three. This is the פשט of אביי according to the way תוספות learns. And now we will continue inside the גמרא further. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says, כגון דאתרו בה מלקות ולא אתרו בה קטלא. The case is exactly as we said according to the פשט of אביי, סיי according to רש''י, סיי according to תוספות, that באמת, סיי ר' מאיר and the חכמים, they both hold that we are חושש for לעז, and they both hold that we care about the כבוד של ראשונים. And therefore, under normal circumstances, ר' מאיר would also agree that you have to have twenty-three. The reason he holds here that it's enough three is because the case is that the witnesses testified that they warned her when she was מזנה that she's going to get מלקות for her עבירה, but they didn't warn her that she's going to get מיתה for her עבירה, she's going to get killed for her עבירה. דקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי ישמעאל ורבנן, and the argument is the same מחלוקת as a מחלוקת between רבי ישמעאל and the חכמים. דתנן, because we learn in our משנה, מלקות בשלשה, when it comes to judge the דינים of מלקות, a בית דין of three is needed. משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו, in the name of רבי ישמעאל they said, בעשרים ושלשה, that you need twenty-three. Now, in the

case where they warned her that she will get מלקות, not מיתה, so automatically מיתה she will not get, because you cannot get killed if you weren't warned that you will get killed, but מלקות she will get, because this goes according to the מאן דאמר that holds that an עבירה that there is a possibility to get מיתה for it, you nevertheless could get מלקות for it if for some reason you don't get מיתה for it. For instance, if when they warned the person they didn't say he's going to get מיתה, they only said he's going to get מלקות, so then the דין is he does get מלקות. Because the truth is, every time you do an עבירה that there is the punishment of מיתה, automatically there is מלקות too, because always the תורה expresses it in a form of a לא תעשה, do not do it, and whenever there's a לא תעשה you get מלקות. The only thing is, if you actually get מיתה, then there is no מלקות. But in a case that you don't get מיתה, then you do get מלקות for it, according to this opinion. So when they warned her that she will get מלקות, and they didn't warn her she will get מיתה, so automatically she doesn't get מיתה, but she gets מלקות. Now,

there is a מחלוקת whether when it comes to מלקות must you have a בית דין of twenty-three or not. רבי ישמעאל holds that you have to have twenty-three, and the חכמים hold that you don't have to have twenty-three. And that is really the מחלוקת between ר' מאיר and the חכמים. The reason ר' מאיר says that three is enough, because we're talking here in a case, according to רש''י, that when the husband came and said that she was מזנה, and he brought witnesses, and the witnesses said that they warned her that she will get מלקות and not מיתה, so automatically this is not a question of דיני נפשות, it's not a question of מיתה, it's only a question of מלקות. now, whether she gets מלקות or not. רבי מאיר holds that מלקות is done בשלשה. So therefore, רבי מאיר says that when the husband comes to claim that she was מזנה and brings these witnesses, three is enough. But the חכמים hold, like רבי ישמעאל, that you must have 23 for מלקות. And therefore, the חכמים say that the דין of מוציא שם רע, when the husband brings these witnesses, you must have 23. According to תוספות, the פשט would be that the father is bringing witnesses to be מכחיש the witnesses of the husband. But what are the witnesses of the husband saying? That they only warned her for מלקות and not for מיתה. So therefore, when the father brings the witnesses to be מכחיש these witnesses, this could never lead to דיני נפשות. Because the only reason we said it could lead to דיני נפשות is because we still are afraid maybe the husband will bring other witnesses. But in a case where he already brought witnesses, and they testified that they only warned her for מלקות, not for מיתה, so automatically, even if other witnesses will come, it will also be only that they warn her for מלקות and not for מיתה. So even though he might bring other witnesses and they would be accepted, it still won't be דיני נפשות. It will only be a דין of מלקות. And therefore, רבי מאיר, who holds that for מלקות three is enough, he says that in this case three is enough, too. But according to the חכמים, who hold that for מלקות you need 23, so they, so here too, when the father brings witnesses to be מכחיש these witnesses, so even though at this point there is no מלקות involved, because the witnesses that the husband brought are false, but still, we're afraid maybe the husband will bring more witnesses. And if he will bring more witnesses that will say the same as these, she would get מלקות. And since for מלקות you need 23, so then we would later on have to get a בית דין of 23. And since חיישינן ללעז, we're afraid of a bad name for the original דיינים, so therefore the חכמים say that לכתחילה you must start off with 23.

רבינא אמר, רבינא says, כגון שנמצא אחד מן העדים קרוב או פסול, that the case is that one of the witnesses that the husband brought was found to be a relative or found to be פסול. וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבי. And they argue in the מחלוקת that רבי יוסי and רבי argue אליבא דרבי עקיבא, according to רבי עקיבא. Within רבי עקיבא's opinion itself, there is a מחלוקת between רבי יוסי and רבי, and that is the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. דתנן, because we learn in the משנה, רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, לא בא שלישי אלא להחמיר עליו. The תורה says על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יקום דבר, that for two witnesses or through three witnesses you establish a thing. So לכאורה, the question is, if two is enough, so certainly three is good, so why does the תורה have to write also על פי שלשה, according to three witnesses? רבי עקיבא says that לא בא שלישי אלא להחמיר עליו, the reason the תורה mentioned the שלישי, the third one, is in order to be מחמיר, that if there is a third witness, the תורה wants to be מחמיר on him, לעשות דינו כיוצא באלו, to make his דין like the others, like the other two. That whatever will happen to the first two will happen to him, too. For instance, if three people came to testify, and they were מזים all three, so then we say that even though without the third one, they also would have been accepted as witnesses, so therefore, when you are מזים them, he should say only they should be punished, not him, because he really didn't add to their testimony. Nevertheless, the תורה says that he becomes part of them, and whatever is done to them is done to him, too. So רבי עקיבא says, ואם כן, if so, it comes out that ענש הכתוב את הנטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה, that the תורה punishes a person who got connected to people who do an עבירה as if he was the one himself who did the עבירה, so על אחת כמה וכמה, so certainly שישלם שכר, that the תורה, השם will pay, give a reward, את הנטפל לעושי מצוה כעושי מצוה, to somebody who is connected to a person who does a מצוה as if he did a מצוה himself. And it's a קל וחומר because we know a rule that מדה טובה מרובה ממדת פורענות, that the good מדה is always more than the bad one and the punishment. So if concerning punishment we say that a person who connects himself to עוברי עבירה is punished like them, so concerning a מצוה, if a person is connected to an עושה מצוה, definitely will get reward like the עושה מצוה. And also, מה שנים נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה, just like when two people come to testify, if one of them is found to be a relative or a פסול, the whole testimony is בטל, אף שלשה, so too, if three people together come, if נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול, if one of the three is one group, if one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, so the whole group is בטל. ומניין שאפילו מאה, and how do we know that the same applies even if there's a hundred, if a group of a hundred witnesses come, and one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, so the whole group is פסול? תלמוד לומר, עדים, the Torah, the Torah says: על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים. So the word עדים means witnesses as many as they are. So as many עדים as are there, as long as they come in one group, if one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, all of them are פסול. אמר רבי יוסי, so רבי יוסי said פשט in רבי עקיבא's words: במה דברים אמורים, when did רבי עקיבא say is the דין that if one of them is found to be a קרוב or a פסול, all of them are פסול, that's only בדיני נפשות. אבל בדיני ממונות, but when it comes to monetary questions, תתקיים עדות בשאר. Then the rest could be good witnesses, and the testimony is established with the rest. And the reason for that is, because concerning דיני נפשות the Torah says: והצילו העדה, that the בית דין should look for זכותים to save the person. So therefore, as soon as one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, that's enough to say that this is a זכות to show that he is innocent. But by דיני ממונות, we don't find such a דין that you have to find זכותים for the person, and therefore, if one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, so we say this one falls off, but the עדות still remains with the rest. But רבי אומר, רבי says, אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות, whether it's דיני ממונות or דיני נפשות, in both cases the דין is that if one of them is a קרוב or a פסול, the whole testimony falls off. But ואימתי, when is this דין said? בזמן שהיתרו בהן, only if the קרוב or the פסול that was among the witnesses warned them too. So then he became part of the group of witnesses. So then, if, since he is a קרוב and a פסול and he belongs to the same group of witnesses, the whole group is פסול. אבל בזמן שלא היתרו בהן, but if the קרוב or the פסול did not warn, did not participate in warning the person, then because he is a קרוב and a פסול doesn't make everybody else פסול. Because מה יעשו שני אחים, what should do two brothers, ואחד, and another one, like there were three people that saw something happen. One of them was a stranger, and the other two were brothers. שראו, that they saw, באחד שהרג את הנפש, in a person that killed somebody, so can they never testify? Since this is one group that saw, and in that one group you have two brothers, so then this person will always be innocent? So what is done is, the stranger and one of the brothers become the witnesses, and since there is no פסול here, then they could come and testify. So if the other brother also participated in the warning, so automatically he's also part of the עדות, so then it is טאקע פסול. But if he did not participate in the warning, so then he is not considered as part of the עדות, and therefore he doesn't spoil the whole עדות. And that's what the גמרא is saying here, that the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים in our משנה is the מחלוקת between רבי יוסי and רבי. According to רבי יוסי we said that by דיני נפשות, whenever you find one of the people a קרוב or a פסול, automatically the whole group is בטל, even if the קרוב or the פסול did not participate in the warning. But according to רבי, if he didn't participate in the warning, the whole group is not בטל. This is the case that happened here that the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is about: that the עדות that the husband brought, so there was a group of עדים, and amongst the עדים was also one a קרוב or a פסול, who did not participate in the warning. So רבי מאיר holds like רבי יוסי, and he says that by דיני נפשות, even if he didn't participate in the warning, nevertheless it spoils the whole עדות. And therefore, here it's enough three, because it's not דיני נפשות. So when the husband brings these עדים, and claims that his wife was מזנה, it's not called דיני נפשות, because the עדים are פסול for דיני נפשות, because there is a קרוב or a פסול amongst them, and therefore רבי מאיר says that three is enough. But the חכמים, they hold like רבי, that if he didn't participate in the warning, so then the עדים are כשר. So therefore, it is דיני נפשות, and therefore the חכמים hold you have to have twenty-three. And according to תוספות, it would be the same thing: that the עדים that the husband brought was a group of עדים and amongst them was a קרוב or a פסול. Now the father brought עדים to be מכחיש these עדים, and he is claiming that he wants the מאה כסף. So רבי מאיר holds like רבי יוסי, and therefore he holds that this עדות is פסול, and we're not afraid that more עדים will come, because the עדים are here already, and they are פסול. So even if more עדים will come, they would still be פסול. So therefore, רבי מאיר says that there is no reason to have to have 23, because this is not דיני נפשות and it could never turn into דיני נפשות. But the חכמים hold like רבי that in a case where the קרוב or פסול did not participate in the warning, then the group of עדים are כשר. So therefore, even though in this case concerning these witnesses that are there, you cannot consider it דיני נפשות, because the father brought witnesses to be מכחיש them, and therefore he is claiming the מאה כסף. So since he was מכחיש them, there is no דיני נפשות. But nevertheless, we are afraid maybe more witnesses will come, and if the more witnesses will come, it will be דיני נפשות, because the רבנן hold like רבי that not everyone is פסול because of this one קרוב and פסול. So since it could turn into דיני נפשות, and we hold that חיישינן לעז, that we are afraid for a לעז on the original דיינים, so after it'll turn into דיני נפשות, we will have to have 23, so there will be a bad name on these original three דיינים. So therefore, the רבנן say that when we start, we also לכתחילה must have 23. Then the גמרא says, ואיבעית אימא, if you want I could give you a different תירוץ, כגון שהיתרו בה אחרים ולא היתרו בה עדים, that other people warned her and not the עדים, דקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן, and they're arguing, the מחלוקת is between רבי יוסי and the רבנן, דתנן, because we learned in the משנה, רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says, לעולם אינו נהרג עד שיהיו שני עדיו מתרין בו, that a person is never killed unless the two witnesses themselves are the ones that warn him, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, על פי שנים עדים, through the mouth of the two עדים, that this warning has to come from the mouth of the two עדים. But not everyone agrees to רבי יוסי. The חכמים hold that even if someone else warned him, but two witnesses saw him do it, it is also enough to kill him. And this is what happened here, that the witnesses that the husband brought against her say that they are not the ones that warned her, other people warned her. So therefore, if you hold that that is enough that she should not get killed, so then it is not called דיני נפשות, it's דיני ממונות, and that's the opinion of רבי מאיר, and therefore he says you judge it only with three. But the חכמים hold that still the person is חייב מיתה, so when the witnesses come and say they saw her being מזנה, even though they were not the ones that warned her, she still is חייב מיתה, so therefore it is דיני נפשות, and you have to have 23. And the same is according to תוספות, that the father is the one that's claiming the מאה כסף based on the fact that he brought witnesses to be מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, but still we should be afraid maybe the husband will bring more witnesses, and if more witnesses will come, maybe because of those witnesses they will kill her, and that's why it'll be דיני נפשות. So if you hold that when the witnesses themselves did not warn, then she does not get killed, so then even if more witnesses will come, nevertheless she won't get killed, so there will never be דיני נפשות. That's the opinion of רבי מאיר, and therefore he says, since it'll never be דיני נפשות, three is enough. The חכמים say that it could turn into דיני נפשות, because maybe other witnesses will come, and then she would get killed, because even though not the witnesses were the one that warned her, but סוף כל סוף she was warned and she could get killed, so since it could turn into דיני נפשות, and then we will have to have 23, so then there will be a לעז on these three, so therefore they say that even when you start, without having more witnesses coming, you also have to start with 23. Then the גמרא says,

ואיבעית אימא, if you want I can give you a different תירוץ, כגון דאסתכחוש בבדיקות, for instance if the two witnesses contradicted themselves concerning the בדיקות, ולא אסתכחוש בחקירות, and they didn't contradict themselves with the חקירות. When witnesses come to testify in דיני נפשות, you have to examine them, and there are two types of examinations. Certain examinations are called the בדיקות, and certain are called חקירות. בדיקות refer to, for instance, if they ask him what kind of clothes did he wear, were they black or were they white, etc. חקירות are the questions when they ask which day did it happen, which hour did it happen, and similar questions, questions that are important for הזמה, that if they will be מוזם, it'll all be based on these questions. Because הזמה, as we said before, means when the second group of witnesses come and say that how can you claim you saw this and this happen at this and this time in this and this place, when at that time you were with us. So the only way they could be מזים them is if you know what time it happened, in which place it happened, etc. So the questions concerning these things is called חקירות. So here's a case when the witnesses that the husband brought to say that they saw her being מזנה contradicted themselves, they didn't fit them amongst themselves in the בדיקות, but they did fit in the חקירות. וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דבן זכאי ורבנן, and the מחלוקת between ר' מאיר and the חכמים is the same מחלוקת as between בן זכאי and the חכמים. דתנן, because we learned, מעשה, there was a story, ובדק בן זכאי בעוקצי תאנים, and בן זכאי investigated, examined them concerning the points of the figs, when they said they saw something happen under a fig tree. So he asked them, what kind of figs were they? The points of the figs, were they thin or were they thick? So it comes out that בן זכאי holds that even concerning these questions, they have to answer them equally, and if they contradict themselves even in a question like that, the עדות is בטל. And that is the מחלוקת here between the חכמים and ר' מאיר. ר' מאיר holds that if they contradict themselves even concerning the בדיקות, not

concerning the questions of the hour, etc., but even concerning the other questions, it's called contradiction. And therefore, their testimony is not accepted, and you couldn't kill the person. But the חכמים hold that as long as they don't contradict themselves concerning the חקירות, so then, even if they contradict contradict themselves concerning the בדיקות, they are still accepted and the person will be killed. And that's what happened here. When the husband brought the witnesses to say that she was מזנה, they contradicted themselves concerning the בדיקות, but not concerning the חקירות. So ר' מאיר holds that therefore they're not accepted, and it's not דיני נפשות anymore, it's only דיני ממונות, and therefore three is enough. But the רבנן hold that this is still considered a good עדות, and therefore it's still דיני נפשות, and therefore you need 23. But לכאורה, according to תוספות's פשט, we don't understand what the גמרא means with this תירוץ. Because the way תוספות learns, the whole פשט in all these תירוצים is that we are not afraid that other group of עדים will come and say different than this group of עדות that the husband brought, and therefore, it depends on whether what this group of עדות says is enough to have her killed. If what this group of עדות says is enough to have her killed, so even though we're talking in a case where the father brought עדות to be מכחיש these עדות, but nevertheless, maybe other עדות will come and say the same thing, and they are not מוכחשים. And therefore, if you hold that what this group of עדות says is enough to have her killed, so then if another group will come and say the same thing, it'll become דיני נפשות. And that's why the חכמים hold that it has to be כ"ג. But ר' מאיר holds that even what this group of עדות says is not enough to have her killed, so therefore, we don't care if another group will come, because even then it will not be דיני נפשות. But that only fits to the other תירוצים of the גמרא. But this תירוץ of the גמרא, when the גמרא says that the מחלוקת is with בן זכאי and the רבנן, that this group of עדות that the husband brought are מכחיש themselves with the בדיקות, not with the חקירות, but why shouldn't we be afraid that another group of עדים will come and they will not be מכחיש themselves, and then it will be דיני נפשות? So ר' מאיר too should hold you have to have כ"ג, because it comes out from the גמרא that all these תירוצים are following what אביי said, that everyone holds that חיישינן לעז, ר' מאיר too. So if ר' מאיר holds חיישינן לעז, so why isn't he afraid in this case that even though the group of עדים that the husband brought are מכחיש themselves in the בדיקות, not in the חקירות, and according to ר' מאיר, it automatically now is not דיני נפשות, but maybe other עדות will come, because חיישינן לעז means that we're afraid maybe other עדות will come, and if they will come, maybe they will not contradict themselves, so then it will be דיני נפשות, and then we will have to have a בית דין of כ"ג. So that will be a לעז for these דיינים. So why shouldn't ר' מאיר also hold that you have to have כ"ג according to the פשט of תוספות? And one of the תירוצים that תוספות gives is that we're talking in a case that the עדים of the father were מזים the עדים of the husband. And as we said before, when they are מזים them, then we're never afraid that another group of עדים will come. But if so, if we're not afraid, why should the חכמים hold that you have to have כ"ג if it'll never come to דיני נפשות anyway? So he

says that is for a different reason, because of כבוד ראשונים. That since they started with a בית דין of כ"ג, so when it continues into דיני ממונות, you also have to have כ"ג because of the כבוד of the ones that it started with. According to ר' מאיר, there is no such thing as כבוד ראשונים here, because לכתחילה there was no חיוב מיתה. Since they were מכחיש amongst themselves with the בדיקות, so there's no חיוב מיתה, so you לכתחילה didn't have כ"ג. And therefore, there is no ראשונים here, so therefore you could continue with three. But according to the רבנן, that it's still considered דיני נפשות even if they're מכחיש with the בדיקות, so you had to have 23. And then, when And they were מזים them, now טאקע we're not afraid that more witnesses will come, but it started with twenty-three because of the דין מיתה, so therefore when it comes to the חלק of the ממון, you also have to have twenty-three. And now we will continue with the גמרא. אמר רב יוסף, רב יוסף said: הביא הבעל עדים שזינתה, if the husband brings witnesses that she was מזנה, והביא האב עדים והזימום לעדי הבעל, and then the father brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the husband, עדי הבעל נהרגין ואין משלמין ממון. So the witnesses of the husband, they get killed, but they don't pay money. ולכאורה, there are two things that happened here: When they testified that she was מזנה, they wanted to cause two things. They wanted her killed, plus they wanted her to lose the כתובה. Now that the עדים of the father were מזים the עדים of the husband, so since there's a דין ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, that you have to do to the עדים that were מוזמין what they wanted to do, so ולכאורה we should do to them two things. We should kill them because they wanted to have her killed, and also there should be a loss of money to them because they wanted to have her lose money. But nevertheless, the גמרא says that it's not so, that they only get killed, but they don't pay any money. And the

reason for that is because we have a דין that a person who is חייב מיתה is automatically פטור from תשלומין. If a person is חייב for the same עבירה two things, he's חייב מיתה plus ממון, so then you only kill the person and he doesn't have to pay any money. As we learn out from the פסוק: לא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש. That if someone pushes a woman who is pregnant, so the תורה says if there will be no tragedy, which means she will not die, then he has to pay money, because there was a loss for the children, the unborn children, for that you don't get killed, but that is considered a damage of money, and therefore he has to pay money, but nothing happens to the person, he is not killed. So we learn out from there. But if there would be an אסון, which means if the woman would die, then the one that did that would not be חייב to pay for the loss of money. Why? Because he would be killed for killing the woman. So from there we see that if somebody is חייב מיתה and תשלומין and money for the same thing, you only get מיתה and you don't get תשלומין. So therefore here too, since the עדים זוממין wanted to have her killed and have her lose the money, so then when they are חייב מיתה, they are פטור from תשלומין. But this is only because the one that they are חייב מיתה for and the one they are חייב תשלומין for, the money for, is for the same person. So since it ממש comes together, so we say whenever the מיתה and the ממון come together, you're only חייב מיתה and not ממון. But one might ask that ולכאורה there's a loss of money that they caused to somebody else, then this דין would not apply. When do we say that if you're חייב מיתה and ממון you only get the מיתה not the ממון? If it's both to the same person. But if there is a חיוב ממון to somebody else, then you are חייב both. In this case, ולכאורה there is a loss of money that they wanted to cause to somebody else also, because in addition to the fact that they wanted to have her lose the כתובה, they also wanted to have the father lose the hundred כסף. By them saying that she was מזנה, if it would be true what they would be saying, then the father would not get the hundred כסף. Now that we are מזים them, the husband is חייב to give a hundred כסף. But it comes out through their testimony, they wanted to have the father lose the hundred כסף. So ולכאורה they should have to pay the hundred כסף. So they should be חייב מיתה for wanting to kill her, and they should be חייב the hundred כסף for wanting to have the father lose the hundred כסף. טאקע for the loss of the כתובה which is to her, they can't be חייב, because they're חייב מיתה because of her, so they can't be חייב ממון for the same reason. But they should be חייב the hundred כסף because they wanted to have the father lose the hundred כסף. So רש"י says that that is not true, because the father did not lose the hundred כסף, because the husband לכתחילה never was חייב to pay a hundred כסף. The only time the husband becomes מחויב to pay a hundred כסף is only after the father is מזים the עדים of the husband. But when they came to testify, there was no חיוב at that time yet for the husband to pay a hundred כסף. So by their testimony, we cannot say that they made the father lose the hundred כסף from the husband. So therefore that doesn't count. The only ממון that's here is the loss of the כתובה, but since the loss of the כתובה is to the same person as to whom they are חייב the מיתה, therefore we say קם ליה בדרבה מיניה and they get only מיתה and they are פטור from the ממון. But then the

גמרא continues, if חזר והביא הבעל עדים והזימום לעדי האב, if the husband went along and he brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the father, then עדי האב נהרגין ומשלמין ממון. Then the witnesses of the father father get killed, and they also pay money. The witnesses of the father get killed because by them being מזים the witnesses, the first witnesses of the husband, they wanted to cause the witnesses of the husband to die. So now that the husband brought other witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the father, so now the witnesses of the father have to get what they wanted to do to the people they were מזים. And since they wanted to cause the first witnesses to die, and now they are מוזם, so they have to die. But they also pay money. Since they wanted to cause the husband to pay מאה כסף when they were מזים the witnesses of the husband, that itself caused the husband to have to pay מאה כסף, so now when you are מזים them, so they have to pay the מאה כסף. הגם we're saying that they're going to get killed too, nevertheless they have to do both: they get killed, and they pay the money, because this time it is ממון לזה ונפשות לזה. The money is for one, and the נפשות is the other. They get killed because they wanted to kill the original witnesses, so their חיוב מיתה is because of them. The money that they wanted to make lose was the husband; they wanted to make him pay the hundred כסף. So they are חייב ממון to somebody else. So in a case where you are חייב money because of one, and death because of another, so you are חייב both. And therefore, in a case like this, they would have to pay and they would get killed.

Concerning when we learned the גמרא before, the גמרא quoted what רבי עקיבא said, that לא בא שלישי אלא להחמיר עליו, that when the תורה says על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יקום דבר, and the question is why does the תורה have to mention the שלישי? So רבי עקיבא said that the תורה did not come to be מיקל, but to be מחמיר. What kind of סברא would it be that we should be מיקל, and what does רבי עקיבא mean to say that it's not to be מיקל, but to be מחמיר? So we find here a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. Because really he goes in continuation to רבי שמעון. Before רבי עקיבא's opinion, so in מסכת מכות דף ה, is mentioned the opinion of רבי שמעון. רבי שמעון says that מה שנים אינם נהרגין עד שיהיו שניהם זוממין אף שלשה. That just like if two witnesses come and they testify, and then you are מזים them, the דין is they're not considered עדי הזמה that they should get killed unless you are מזים them both. But if you מזים only one, so we don't say that at least that one that you are מזים let him get killed. It doesn't have a דין of הזמה unless both of them are מוזם. So too by three, that if three people come to testify, and you are מזים two out of the three, it's not considered הזמה unless you're מזים all three. If the third one would not have been with them, this would have been הזמה, since two עדים are considered עדות. But since you have three, so it turns into one group, and the only time that they're considered מוזמין if you're מזים all three. That's what רבי שמעון holds we learn out from the פסוק על פי שלשה עדים. And on this רבי עקיבא comes and says that לא בא שלישי להקל עליו אלא להחמיר, that when the תורה says שלישי it doesn't come to be מיקל, but to be מחמיר. So תוספות learns the פשט is that he says that the תורה doesn't come to be מיקל, because according to רבי שמעון, the תורה is מיקל: that if you have three people testifying, and you're only מזים two, the fact that you have a third one with them is מיקל that now this is not considered הזמה, since the third one who's part of the group was not מוזם. So רבי עקיבא says that that is not so, the תורה doesn't come to be מיקל, the תורה comes to be מחמיר, that in the case where you are מזים two out of the three, they are considered הזמה, and they would get killed. But when the תורה says שלישי, that's for a different reason: to tell us that the third one has the same דין as them, that if the third one was also מוזם, then the third one would get killed. And the third one can't say that, "Don't count me because without me they would have been witnesses anyway, so therefore my testimony doesn't add anything, and therefore if you are מזים me, it shouldn't count לגבי דידי?" So the תורה says no, it counts לגבי him too, but not that the תורה comes to be מיקל. But רש״י learns the פשט different: that when רבי עקיבא says לא בא שלישי להקל אלא להחמיר and he argues on רבי שמעון, what he means to say is not that he holds not like רבי שמעון, he holds like רבי שמעון, that if you have a group of three and one of the three is not מוזם but the other two are, they are also not considered הזמה. What he means was that the תורה doesn't come to tell us that, because that is very simple, we wouldn't need a פסוק for that. Because for that, we have the other פסוק where it says והנה עד שקר העד, so from that we learn out that the only time they would get killed is if all the witnesses in the group are מוזם. So we don't have to have this פסוק על פי שלשה עדים to tell us this דין, because this קולא that the third one could save the other two is understood from the other פסוק. So what does this פסוק come to tell us? The פסוק comes to tell us a חומרא, that if he is מוזם, the third one, then he cannot say he should be saved, because his testimony doesn't make a difference because he's only a third, so we say, no, the תורה says, since he got connected to the עוברי עבירה, he gets the same punishment as them. But רבי עקיבא agrees to רבי שמעון, according to רש״י, that this third one could save the other two.

Another thing that תוספות asks is concerning the later גמרא, where it says that if the husband brought witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the father that were מזים the original witnesses of the husband, so then the witnesses that the father brought would get killed and they would pay money. The question תוספות asks, why would they בכלל get killed? If the husband brings witnesses to be מזים the witnesses of the father, why should they get killed? Why can they not say that when we came to testify for the husband, we didn't want to testify in order to have the original עדים killed. The only reason we testified is because we wanted the husband to pay the hundred כסף. But we didn't intend to have the original עדים killed, because obviously they weren't warned, because the דין is that עדי הזמה are חייב even if they're not warned. So since they're not warned, they could always say that all we meant was to have the בעל pay. And תוספות says that we have a ראיה to that, because we see in the גמרא later on דף מ״ו עמוד ב׳, the גמרא says according to the מאן דאמר that a חבר doesn't have to be warned, so then if a woman was a חבירה and she was מזנה as a נערה המאורסה, so her witnesses could never be killed if they become מוזמין. Because since they didn't warn her, they're always able to say that all we had in mind was that she should become forbidden to live with her husband, because a woman who is מזנה cannot go back to her husband, but we didn't have in mind to have her killed. If they would have to warn her, then they can't say that, because they actually have to say, you will get killed, but since they don't have to warn her, so they could always say we didn't have that in mind. So we see the גמרא feels that way. So why can't we say the same thing here too, that since you don't have to warn עדים, עדי הזמה, so maybe they could say that when we were מזים the first עדים, all we had in mind was to have the husband pay the מאה כסף, but not that they should be killed. And תוספות says that the case here is different than the case there, because here they know, when they are מזים the original עדים, they know that they will get killed. They know that the original עדים wanted to kill her, so now that they are מזים them, they will have them get killed, because it's impossible one without the other. In the case of the נערה המאורסה, there they could always say, we didn't know she was a חבירה. So when we didn't warn her, we thought she'll become אסורה to her husband if we testify, but she will not get killed, because we didn't know she was a חבירה, so we knew by not warning, she won't get killed. Or they could say that we didn't know the דין that a חבר doesn't need התראה. We thought a חבר does need התראה, and by us not warning her, even though she's a חבר, automatically, she will not get killed. So all we had in mind when we testified was that she should become אסורה to her husband. But here, they know that by them testifying, they're causing them to die, so they cannot say all we wanted was לאסרה על בעלה. And therefore here, the עדים of the father that are מוזם through the second group of עדים of the husband, automatically are חייב מיתה. And the חידוש of the גמרא is that even though they're חייב מיתה, they also have to pay the מאה כסף, because the מיתה is to one, and the מאה כסף is to somebody else.